Max has 3 choices as I see it.
1. Wait them out - i.e. wait another 12 months and try again to get the changes passed.
2. Appeal to ILGA that the majority voted for the changes and the 75% condition should be put aside in this instance.
3. Determine a means to get more voters and hence dilute the percentage of the 72 dissenters.

Click to expand...

Honestly wished I could have gone, I started work an hour before that meeting started.

Maybe a good tip would be to have these meetings at a time that suited more people. Sunday Morning around 10am ?

As far as I read it, Sharp, Issa, Serrao, and Geoff Gerard are all banned from being members board of the LC or any registered club for 3 years, and the club should pay the ILGA's costs of $99,476.44 for the investigation.

As far as I read it, Sharp, Issa, Serrao, and Geoff Gerard are all banned from being members board of the LC or any registered club for 3 years, and the club should pay the ILGA's costs of $99,476.44 for the investigation.

So, there has been a new petition lodged with the club by opponents of the changes Max is trying to introduce. From what I have seen of it there are 4 resolutions being requested to be voted on at a general meeting which has been demanded to be held as soon as possible.

The resolutions are:
Special Resolution (1) That the first board be elected and not appointed by Max;
Special Resolution (2) That the Nominations Committee be deleted
Ordinary Resolution (1) That nomination for Board of Directors be called (it sets a date of Dec 11, which is not practical)
Ordinary Resolution (2) That Max's appointment be terminated once the Board is elected.

So it seems that the 230 people that signed this are really adamant that they get to vote for the Board and not have it appointed by Max. Seems like someone really wants to get control of the PLC and knows that if Max picks the Board, the chances of ever getting their faction into control would be minimal.

So, there has been a new petition lodged with the club by opponents of the changes Max is trying to introduce. From what I have seen of it there are 4 resolutions being requested to be voted on at a general meeting which has been demanded to be held as soon as possible.

The resolutions are:
Special Resolution (1) That the first board be elected and not appointed by Max;
Special Resolution (2) That the Nominations Committee be deleted
Ordinary Resolution (1) That nomination for Board of Directors be called (it sets a date of Dec 11, which is not practical)
Ordinary Resolution (2) That Max's appointment be terminated once the Board is elected.

So it seems that the 230 people that signed this are really adamant that they get to vote for the Board and not have it appointed by Max. Seems like someone really wants to get control of the PLC and knows that if Max picks the Board, the chances of ever getting their faction into control would be minimal.

I hope no one on here was mad enough to sign the petition.

Click to expand...

Yes their motives seem pretty transparent. Usually petitions give a reason why they are seeking change. Do they offer any justification for their roadblocking?

If this gets through (and shit I hope it doesn't) does that mean Max's appointment here is pretty much a failure in that the factions may get back in and no real change to the constitution?

Click to expand...

On the surface no, because they are only looking for 2 changes to Max's draft constitution which has about 10 changes in total. However, one of the key points of the appointment of Max from ILGA was to ensure that constitutional reform was carried out that gave us a suitably qualified Board and that removed the opportunity for "factions", "tickets", etc. to gain control of the club via the Board.
There are 3 changes to the Constitution that other organisations have put in place to achieve similar aims and 2 of these the petition is trying to remove. The other is the triennial election process which would be harder to vote down, however due to the apathy of PLC members, most Directors would be re-elected at the end of their term, hence the importance of the First Board for those that want factional ownership.

I assume the resolutions would require far in majority vote that Max's resolutions required, and given that those resolutions didn't pass but received the majority of votes, why the f**k do they think their own resolutions will get passed?
Sure maybe after a bit of time of passed they might receive the "just make any old changes" sentiment, even then I don't reckon they'd have enough of a swing, but doing it now so soon after the last vote is just a kick and hope.
I'm not against anyone based solely on the company they keep, but seriously wouldn't the betterment of the club be to go with what the majority of voters wanted? If you can't get in on your own merits, either you or the system is f**ked. f**king it more will not make it better

So, there has been a new petition lodged with the club by opponents of the changes Max is trying to introduce. From what I have seen of it there are 4 resolutions being requested to be voted on at a general meeting which has been demanded to be held as soon as possible.

The resolutions are:
Special Resolution (1) That the first board be elected and not appointed by Max;
Special Resolution (2) That the Nominations Committee be deleted
Ordinary Resolution (1) That nomination for Board of Directors be called (it sets a date of Dec 11, which is not practical)
Ordinary Resolution (2) That Max's appointment be terminated once the Board is elected.

So it seems that the 230 people that signed this are really adamant that they get to vote for the Board and not have it appointed by Max. Seems like someone really wants to get control of the PLC and knows that if Max picks the Board, the chances of ever getting their faction into control would be minimal.